I don't know, samurai did not box nor wrestle."??? Wrong answer... they did both... they just called them by japanese names...
Xu...so samurai always wore armor and were on a bloody battlefield 24/7??? this is silly... aikido was derived from various Jujutsu that were meant to address the battlefield AND everything else including striking, kicking and groundwork... do the research... you can find scrolls that show 'non-battlefield/fully armored' applications... the arts were equally weapon and empty hand... anything else would just be dumb... that is the "why" and it justifies BOTH weapons and empty hand... It must also be effective otherwise why did it survive? Why would you practice something that is not effective???
Chill Edwin. Aiki-jutsu, jujutsu and similar type arts are no doubt applicable in weapon and weaponless situation. My point is that if you look at aikido from the point of a weapon based scenario, you see the connection to the technique more relevantly. Again, I reiterate, despite this weapon art derived ancestry, I never doubt that its applicability in an hand to hand combat scenario.
Again, I must add, I personally never doubt the art that I practice as ineffective, I maybe ineffective perhaps (trying hard to be put on humble demeanour while typing this sentence
) , but I never doubt the art's effectiveness.